• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

Yeggster said:
100% not true.

Confiscation can be done under "Public Safety" laws with a simple warrant signed by a Justice of Peace ... no charges need be laid .. just the opinion that public safety may be compromised by the owner of the firearms anyone who lives in the same building ... a hearing to destroy the firearms is automatically held a few weeks later.
Click to expand...

link?
 
Yeggster said:
It's easy when it's not YOUR ox being gored eh?:( ... how about they confiscate $3000 worth of your video game consoles computer and TV's ... because they create violent offenders? (just an exaggeration to make a point BTW)
Click to expand...

If there were a reasonable argument to do so, I'd be an idiot not to allow the confiscation. The day my video consoles, computer and television are worth more than human lives is a day I hope never to see.
 
NoahFence said:
I kinda found that hard to believe as well.
Click to expand...


117.04 (1) Where, pursuant to an application made by a peace officer .... (and) a justice is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person possesses a weapon ... that it is not desirable in the interests of public safety ... the justice may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to ... seize any such thing ... that is ... in the possession of the person
Click to expand...

Note:no charges are necessary or needed
 
Should this thread be merged ?

Ziggurat said:
Roof purchased the gun in April. It was more than a month before he murdered those people. How long a wait period do you think would have worked? Even if it had been, say, a 3 month waiting period, why should we believe he wouldn't have just waited, rather than giving up on his plan?

And lastly, why do you want poor women under threat of domestic violence to be unable to defend themselves? Because that's what a waiting period does: it renders them defenseless.
Click to expand...

Axiom_Blade said:
We've been over this before.
Click to expand...

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but we've been over everything in this entire thread before.

I cannot think of a single reason why this thread should not just be tacked onto the end of the last gun thread. But I am willing to change my mind if shown evidence. Is there any evidence that this thread's purpose or function is so unique that it deserves a separate thread instead of being combined with an existing thread? Obviously we would need a new gun thread if a new study had been published or a new a new bill had been proposed. Or if a president or political party or the gun lobby embarked on a new campaign to change gun laws in this country; or even if any of their responses to a mass murder were different from their responses to previous mass murders.

Leaving aside both appeals to emotion and displays of emotion, is there evidence that this thread's purpose or function is so unique that it deserves a separate thread instead of being combined with an existing gun thread?


.
Disclaimer: I am not now, nor will I, ask the moderators for a merge. I am merely asking a question of the posters and lurkers.
 
Last edited:
Please think of the children.

We could end child rape tomorrow by issuing every child a fire arm. Every alter boy should have at least two.

Those who do not support the rights of children to keep and bear arms are in favor of child rape.

satire
 
RandFan said:
I've never seen that demand. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...

It's come up a few times in gun control threads. Godzilla-sama, Travis (who includes illegal harassment by making false claims and bring false criminal accusations against gun owners under acceptable tactics to reduce gun ownership in the US) and arthwollipot have all advocated for complete bans besides military, if I remember correctly. Others have argued that they aren't for complete bans, but what they propose would be defacto bans.

RandFan said:
Just so we are clear. Those sentiments mean nothing. The Democrats had their collective rear ends handed to them on gun control. They can't even get a bill passed that is supported by most gun owners.
Click to expand...

So the SAFE act didn't pass in New York, and Washington also didn't pass their bill? Those weren't even supported by most gun owners.
 
tyr_13 said:
It's come up a few times in gun control threads. Godzilla-sama, Travis (who includes illegal harassment by making false claims and bring false criminal accusations against gun owners under acceptable tactics to reduce gun ownership in the US) and arthwollipot have all advocated for complete bans besides military, if I remember correctly. Others have argued that they aren't for complete bans, but what they propose would be defacto bans.
.
Click to expand...
I have never advocated for a complete ban on guns. And if you would be so kind as to post links to the proposition that would be defacto bans, please?
 
tyr_13 said:
So the SAFE act didn't pass in New York, and Washington also didn't pass their bill? Those weren't even supported by most gun owners.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I was speaking nationally. Universal Background Checks was supported by gun owners but not gun manufacturers. Given that the NRA is ostensibly an organization that is supposed to represent gun owners it was odd they (the NRA) said no.

Do me a favor, compare the number of gun rights bills passed on the national stage compared to bills aimed at reducing reproductive rights.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I have never advocated for a complete ban on guns. And if you would be so kind as to post links to the proposition that would be defacto bans, please?
Click to expand...

Sorry if I got your position incorrect (and the spelling of your name). Do you oppose bans?

But no, I would not be so kind. That is a lot of footwork reading a lot of threads with a lot of emotionally motivated and difficult to read because of wording posts.

Examples would included requiring ungodly high insurance/insurance that covers criminal acts, restricting to weapons unable to kill x yards out (with x being something like 100 if I remember correctly), single shot only combined with extremely strict reviews conducted yearly, no home storage of firearms at all with extremely high yearly certifications, etc.

If you make it so that 95% of people who would own a gun cannot, in effect you've banned guns.
 
RandFan said:
I apologize, I was speaking nationally. Universal Background Checks was supported by gun owners but not gun manufacturers. Given that the NRA is ostensibly an organization that is supposed to represent gun owners it was odd they (the NRA) said no.

Do me a favor, compare the number of gun rights bills passed on the national stage compared to bills aimed at reducing reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

Why? Does one being a problem make the other not a problem?

I'll compare them another way. They both tend to be designed to achieve an unpopular end by claiming to be about something slightly different. I also tend to oppose both when that's the case.
 
tyr_13 said:
Why? Does one being a problem make the other not a problem?
Click to expand...
No. Um, no. Where did that come from? It's called contrast and compare.

To pass a controversial bill requires an effort on the part of someone to actually introduce the bill.

You can gauge the political will to pass a bill based on whether or not legislators care enough to even write the bill.

There is no will to get background checks much less ban guns. Is there will to strip women of their constitutional right to get an abortion? Yes.

Can you see any difference between the two or are we going to stick with the dichotomy where one issue speaks to whether another is a problem? My point is about political will. There is none to ban guns. There isn't even enough will to even do what the American public want.

Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal ... - The Hill

Is that clear or are we even communicating?
 
It is my understanding that law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry weapons into a house of worship in South Carolina.

What do Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown, a theater in Boulder, CO and a mall in Portland, OR all have in common?

They all forbid law-abiding citizens from carrying on the premises.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma each November and April for the past ~22 years the world's largest gunshow has been held with attendance exceeding 50,000 during many of those events.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of guns and tons of ammunition at those events.

There has never been a mass shooting (or, even an intentional individual shooting) at these gun shows nor at any (IIRC) of the other dozens of gunshows held around the country.

Why?

IMO, the monsters that walk among us are insane...however, they are not stupid.

The little sign with the circle/handgun/slash is both an indictment on the failure of social engineering and a welcome mat to these monsters that "here is your killing field and place for your 15 minutes of fame".

IIRC, Utah has allowed CCW in schools for decades and (IIRC) there have been no mass shootings in that states' schools.
 
Last edited:
Yuchi1 said:
There has never been a mass shooting (or, even an intentional individual shooting) at these gun shows nor at any (IIRC) of the other dozens of gunshows held around the country.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. Correlation does not imply causation. If having guns made societies safe then America would be far safer than Canadians, Australians, The British, etc..

There is no evidence that more guns equals less crime.
 
RandFan said:
Non sequitur. Correlation does not imply causation. If having guns made societies safe then America would be far safer than Canadians, Australians, The British, etc..

There is no evidence that more guns equals less crime.
Click to expand...

Wrong, sir.

The places inside the USA where legal firearms are prevalent are safer than those that do not.

Also, citizens here have historically been more independent minded that say, subjects of the Crown. After all, some of my ancestors in Massachusetts, Delaware & Virginia convinced King George to take his army back home and many of his supporters (Tories) went running to Canada, a Commonwealth country. BTW, don't forget Australia started out as the primary Penal Colony for the Crown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom